Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked to Introduce New Pleas, Cure Defective Pleadings or Reargue a Concluded Case: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Rohtash and Others v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others
Date of Judgment: September 10, 2026
Citation: RA-CW No. 488 of 2026 in CWP No. 31045 of 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC cannot be invoked to introduce an entirely new case, fill omissions in the original pleadings or secure a rehearing on grounds that were available but never raised when the writ petition was adjudicated. A review proceeding is confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record, considering genuinely new and important evidence that could not have been produced despite due diligence, or examining another reason strictly analogous to those grounds.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ attempt to raise, for the first time in review, a claim that vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen and sportspersons had remained unfilled and ought to have been filled by operating the waiting list. As this contention was neither pleaded in the writ petition nor included in the petitioners’ earlier representation, it could not form the foundation of a review application. The Court further observed that the petitioners had approached the authorities three years after the 2022 recruitment advertisement and held that the delay was, by itself, sufficient to “suffocate” their claim.
Summary: The petitioners sought review and recall of the judgment dated December 23, 2025 passed by the High Court in CWP No. 31045 of 2025. In the review proceedings, they contended that Punjab State Power Corporation Limited had acted contrary to notifications dated October 14 and October 21, 2019. According to them, certain vacancies falling within the Ex-servicemen and sportsperson categories had remained unfilled and the Corporation was consequently required to operate the waiting list. They claimed that operation of the waiting list would have enabled their consideration for appointment against those vacancies.
The Corporation opposed the application on the ground that the claim regarding unfilled reserved-category vacancies and operation of the waiting list had neither been pleaded in the writ petition nor raised in the petitioners’ representation. It pointed out that the recruitment advertisement was issued in 2022, whereas the petitioners submitted their representation only on June 24, 2025. In the meantime, the unfilled posts had been carried forward and two subsequent recruitment advertisements had been issued in 2023 and 2025. The Corporation also objected to the review application having been filed through counsel different from the advocate who had represented the petitioners in the original writ proceedings.
The High Court reiterated that review is a restricted statutory remedy and cannot be treated as another opportunity to argue the case. Relying on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, 2013 SCC OnLine SC 714, the Court stated that repetition of rejected arguments, reappreciation of evidence, the mere possibility of another view or an alleged erroneous decision on merits cannot sustain review. An error apparent must be self-evident and capable of being identified without an elaborate process of reasoning.
Referring to State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died), 2024 INSC 310, the Court observed that the burden of establishing due diligence lies heavily upon the party seeking review on the basis of newly discovered material. Such material must have existed when the original judgment was delivered, must have been unavailable despite due diligence and must possess sufficient evidentiary value to potentially alter the result. A subsequent event, by itself, ordinarily cannot furnish a ground for review.
The Court also relied upon State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, to reiterate that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution must be decided on the pleadings of the parties. Relief founded upon a case never pleaded cannot ordinarily be granted because pleadings define the controversy, notify the opposite party of the case it must meet and determine the evidence required for adjudication.
Applying these principles, the Court found that the review application disclosed no error apparent in the judgment dated December 23, 2025. The petitioners were attempting to introduce a fresh case based on unfilled Ex-servicemen and sportsperson vacancies and the alleged obligation to operate a waiting list. Since this case formed no part of the writ petition or the earlier representation, review jurisdiction could not be employed to cure the omission after adjudication.
The Court also took note of the petitioners’ delay in asserting their recruitment claim. Although the advertisement was issued in 2022, the representation was submitted only in June 2025, after the unfilled vacancies had been carried forward and subsequent recruitment processes had commenced. The Court held that this delay independently undermined the claim.
Lastly, relying upon Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, (1997) 9 SCC 736, the Court disapproved the practice of engaging a different counsel to seek review or clarification with the object of rearguing a concluded matter. A change of counsel cannot provide a litigant with a fresh opportunity to reconstruct or improve a case already decided.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the review application after finding no error apparent on the face of the record or any other legally sustainable ground for reviewing the judgment dated December 23, 2025.